All Hell Breaks Loose After Trump Says Women Should Be "Punished" For Illegal Abortions

Although one might fairly question the methodology behind the polls and whether the questions were designed to elicit a certain type of response, it is worth noting that in three separate surveys (NBC, WSJ, and CNN), Trump’s favorability rating with female voters was 27% or less.

Even if one assumes that the polls were inherently biased, there’s probably some truth to the contention that the things Trump has said about women in the past haven’t done anything to help him when it comes to garnering a large percentage of the female vote and may indeed come back to haunt him in a national contest with Hillary Clinton.

Well on Wednesday, in an MSNBC town hall event, Trump was cornered by host Chris Matthews who asked the GOP frontrunner about his position on illegal abortion.

Trump says "there has to be some form of punishment" for women who have abortions. Interview airs tonight at 8pmET.https://t.co/SR3st1X665

Host Chris Matthews presses Trump on anti-abortion position, repeatedly asking him, “Should abortion be punished? This is not something you can dodge”

“Look, people in certain parts of the Republican Party, conservative Republicans, would say, ‘Yes, it should,’” Trump answers

“How about you?” Matthews asks

“I would say it’s a very serious problem and it’s a problem we have to decide on. Are you going to send them to jail?” Trump says

“I’m asking you,” Matthews says

“I am pro-life,” Trump says

“How do you actually ban abortion?” Matthews asks

“Well, you go back to a position like they had where they would perhaps go to illegal places but we have to ban it,” Trump says

Matthews then presses Trump on if he believes there should be punishment for abortion if it were illegal

“There has to be some form of punishment,” Trump says

“For the woman?” Matthews says; “Yeah,” Trump says, nodding

Trump says punishment would “have to be determined”

“They’ve set the law and frankly the judges, you’re going to have a very big election coming up for that reason because you have judges where it’s a real tipping point and with the loss of Scalia, who was a very strong conservative, this presidential election is going to be very important,” Trump says

“When you say what’s the law, nobody knows what the law is going to be. It depends on who gets elected,” Trump says

Obviously, this was "gotcha" journalism on Matthews' part (once he established that he was referring to illegal abortions he knew he could pin Trump between having to either say women should be punished or that women could break the law with impunity), and as we saw last year with the whole Kurds/Quds Hugh Hewitt debacle, Trump is susceptible to badgering. The other problem here is that it isn't clear that Trump truly believes some of the things he's forced to say as a Republican candidate, which leads to exchanges like that recounted above. "Don't overthink it: Trump doesn't understand the pro-life position because he's not pro-life," a Cruz aid tweeted. Here's Politico with a bit of context:

Trump’s policy idea is a departure from most state abortion restrictions, which don’t impose penalties on the women who get abortions. Typically, any penalties are imposed on the physician who does the procedure.

The anti-abortion movement in recent decades has shied away from the perception that it is “punishing” women for getting abortions. Instead, it has focused on penalties for the physicians who provide them, such as imposing medical or legal restrictions on their practice. In some rare situations, women have faced charges associated with abortions they have attempted on their own.

Having realized this had become a PR fiasco, Trump promptly walked back his comments.

This is a statement released just moments ago, in which the billionaire revises his initial comments, calling the women "victims", and stating it is doctors who should be held legally responsible for performing the illegal act:

If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be legally responsible, not the woman. The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed - like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions.

But by the time the Trump campaign released that statement it was far too late. The media, women's rights groups, pro-abortion groups, as well as all of Trump's political opponents smelled blood.

"The last person women need to police their health care decisions is someone who sees them not as people, but as ‘fat pigs,’ ‘bimbos’ and ‘disgusting animals,’" Marcy Stech, a spokeswoman for Emily's List, a pro-abortion-rights group said.

Comment viewing options

So, let me understand you, you are saying all abortion should be legal and in making it all legal we should create incentives for women to get pregnant and abort the child because of one particular crime that is perhaps one of the rarest situations resulting from violent crimes in the nation?

I suppose you also think that no rocket should ever be launched from Florida ever ever again because... Challenger.

Listening to every random person who has every single random horrible situation and changing our laws for the most random horrible situations imaginable is what got us into this fucked-up bullshit legal system we have now.

Not as rare as you think. I actually know personally 2 women this happened to. I told the one story because it was the more sympathetic one. The other one, he gave her "the gift" and it was twins. They were both DUI, so to speak, lots of substance abuse. The first couple, not the case.

I do not believe I could have an abortion, actually. I am not arrogant enough to think that there may not be exceptional situations where it should be permitted.

Why do we have jury nullification?

Because sometimes, even when a law is broken, a jury of your peers understands why you did it, and they let you off, anyway.

FBI statistics show rape occurs in the U.S. at the rate of about 5 per 100,000 people per year.

There is no breakdown in that statistic for rape that went to "completion" for the male, conservatively I'll call that 75%

This leaves 3.75 completed rapes per 100,000 Americans per year.

Women generally have a fertile window each month of ~8 days according to a quick internet search. Sperm are viable in a woman for ~3 days.

So at worst, if you assume the woman takes no action if she was raped to prevent pregnancy, you get a window of 11 days each month in which a woman can potentially get pregnant. In reality it is lower than this, but I'm being nice.

That's 11/28 or 40% chance on any random timed encounter of sperm and egg matching after a rape, so that knocks the number down more, to something like....

1.473 potential women impregnated by rape per 100,000 people per year.

Your chances of winning an oscar are greater, have you got your speech prepared yet?

You're only half as likely to have conjoined twins than to get raped and impregnated.

You're twice as likely to die in a work related accident.

You're five times as likely to get brain cancer or HIV every year.

You're 15 times more likely to contract breast cancer in any given year.

It's rare. I don't care if you throw me anecdotes, nobody can verify your anecdotes. I'm bringing actual statistics to the table. IT IS RARE. Laws are not supposed to change to accommodate ONE RARE EVENT.

he gave her "the gift" and it was twins. They were both DUI, so to speak, lots of substance abuse.

Sounds like you think he "did" something "to" her. Sounds to me like consenting adults, and if both are equals then both share the "blame" and responsibility. "Let's get drunk and screw" is as old as humanity. There is no one taking advantage of anyone in this scenario, unless someone got roofied. If you know you get horny when you drink, aren't using birth control, and don't want to get pregnant (or inseminate someone), dont drink. Alcohol releases inhibitions. Most people, especially young people, like to screw. So don't blame men for this. When you start drinking, you assume responsibility. Either we are equals, or we are not. There is no "I want to be equal here but have less responsibility there." I understand women wanting that, but you don't expect us to let you have it, do you?

I said up front the second case did not have the same merit as the first case which is why I only posted about the first case. When Nuubee said it was rare, I then brough up that I knew about a second incident. In the first incident there was no booze or drugs. The second case, yes.

It takes a liberal to throw Trumps campaign manager in jail for touching a woman on the wrist, but feign outrage for suggesting that a woman who violates the law and kills her unborn baby should not walk away free.

Liberals need to be fucking killed. They are beyond redemption. Fuck each and every last one of them. I value the life of a squirrel more than theirs.

Actually I believe a man is under no obligation if he hasn't married her. That's what marriage's promise is - both parties swearing themselves to each other, for the purpose of building their lives together and hopefully, to raise a family together.

When a bastard is spawned no such agreement exists - so no obligation should exist either. "Defacto relationships" are an imposition of "marriage" upon parties that have made no such commitment, the equivalent of holding people to a contract they have not signed.

Whether you agree with these facts or not only describes whether you are a Humanist or not. It does nothing to refute these facts.

Ask these two questions to anyone you meet and you will learn all you need to know about all of their political beliefs:

1. Is everyone equal: Yes/No ?

2. Do people possess great intrinsic value : Yes/No ?

People who answer Yes are Humanists/Liberals. People who say no are not. Try it for yourselves. Interestingly I have never found anyone answer anything but either Yes to both or no to both questions.

I propose that Abortion is a homicide as it is an intentional killing of a human life which is a single entity.

Although it is totally dependent upon the biological host for life support it will still be almost as dependent after leaving the womb,traveling through the birth canal,and entering into the atmosphere.

Infanticide is considered homicide, more likely as murder, by most every civilized culture.

What differentiates the infant from the fetus other than location? Is an infant considered a human life at the hospital or when it leaves for the journey to its parents'home? That is a change in location.

Perhaps we can address viability.

Is a human dependent upon a respirator due to trauma or disease alive? If I were to walk into that hospital and turn off that life support system then am I guilty of a Mercy Killing, a homicide?

Likewise if a Fetus is premature without the ability to breathe on its own does it make it any less alive than the human being on a respirator in a Hospital?

So obviously we can not differentiate it in that manner. We cannot claim that the fetus is not human because it cannot breathe on its own.

Killing a Human Being is homicide technically. That is pretty much by definition

I am curious what criteria that you use to claim that it is not a homicide.

Abortion is other people's private business. If someone doesn't want to keep 'the baby', who gives a fuck. Isn't this a libertarian site? Do all of you really support the state telling you what you can and cannot do purely on the basis of what a group of ignorant religious fanatics think the bearded man in the clouds wants them to do?

this goes beyond the 'state telling us what to do'...there is a thing called common decency and being a human being. having caual sex with a black panther member in a burger king bathroom then getting pregnant and cutting the kid out and selling its to a lab....what is the point of society? god and religion doesnt have anything to do with this.

why dont we just kill children for the fun of it on television? why have society..?

Your example is pure fantasy. Your personal beliefs, Christianity most probably, are playing on your imagination. Abortion is not murder. A foetus is not a human being. Political problems (oligrachy, financial tyranny etc.) are more important than the private medical decisions of an individual. But...watch this bullshit burn Trump and anyone else that doesn't pay sufficient lip service to this medieval nonsense. Move to Saudi Arabia if you want a bunch of moral policemen telling you about God's law. That shit has no place in a republic of the free.

You seem to ignore the fact that our individual morality DEFINES our society, including its laws and government. When we say an unborn child's life is irrelevant, how can you realistically believe that your life matters. If your definition of life is independence, then we are ALL doomed.

Our "political problems (oligrachy, financial tyranny etc.)" are a direct reflection of OUR problems. Lying cheating murdering fuckers are NOT exclusively at the top of the heap, even if they are the most proficient.

ifa fetus isnt a human being than why dont we just have abortions broadcast on tv. throw the fetus in a blender and watch them churn. why not cook them and eat them. they arent human but they are protein. feed the fetus to your dog when your 12 year old daughter gets knocked up by her black boyfriend....

Right....we need no laws restricting murder. Conservatism is NOT anarchy. The founders who were pretty much the prototypical conservative small government believers STILL saw a need for common law that punished murder, and there is NOTHING new about abortion until progressives got involved. Thousands of years of accepted moral behavior swept away by a single scotus decision. We have no respect for history, for anything that got us here. Like insolent children we discard everything as obsolete and irrelevant.

if you are a woman that relies on abortions for your birth control you need to be horsewhipped. if women use this to NOT vote for a cannidate we need to seriously look at why women have the right to vote in this country. dont give me the tired old excuse 'but what if she was raped or what if it has a medical issue'....this isnt about that. this is about fat fucking stupid lazt ass women that cant take a simple pill......

If illegal to get an abortion in a state, and the woman gets one anyways and breaks the law, wouldn't it make sense she gets in trouble? The media is always spinning this into the headline, "Trump wants to lock up all woman who get abortions" I just saw the cover of Daily News on drudge and it has pink handcuffs with a title like that...disgusting.

Yes you are right but this is politics and the biased liberal media will spin this into a giant web of shit he will never live down. That is the point. Trump needs to choose his words more carefully knowing this.

And although what Trump said is technically 100% correct (ANYONE breaking a law would be punished) the media spins it to suit their needs. He walked into a trap and got caught. Better luck next time.

Dude you're winning, please for the love of God, shut up! If I was trump Id be done with the hitmen CIA Operaters disguised as newsies like this Cocksmoke. Just do rallies bro, stear clear of anything relating to women and you'll be fine

I am completely at a loss for words. This is THE site for independent-minded libertarians, isn't it? Molon labe and all that. And yet, suddenly you all have astonishingly hard-core views on who should be allowed to do what, and what the state should do in return as retribution. Tall Tom and his enthusiasm for enforced castration is a case in point.

Serious question here: in what way do you individually feel qualified to enforce your personal moral views on me? Why do you feel that I don't have the right to object to your world-view? Why do you think that the threat of castration is a REASONABLE threat? In what way is this deranged psychopathic desire to force your world view on everyone else reasonable? FFS you've got me writing like Ghordius now!

Here's a thought for all you statist lunatics who think you know best: I will fuck up MY life, my way. It's up to ME. NOT you. YOU are free to fuck up YOUR life any way you see fit. I will refrain from passing judgement on you, and expect the same in return. I do, however, reserve the right to point out your fuckup, purely for educational purposes, but I will not try to cut off your balls, either figuratively or literally.

If you think that God is involved in this abortion discussion, then you are no better, and possibly worse (disingenuous) than head-chopping ISIS loonies.

I for one am very diasappointed in Trump's performance the past few days. He was caught off guard and should have been better prepared.I'm tired of hearing the same old, "we are gonna get ISIS" and "we have a major problem in this country" lines. NO shit Sherlock that is why we are voting for you since the other candidates don't have the balls to even talk about it. Trump needs to expound on that. Don't wait until you are debating Hitlery to give you details out! Do it now!

He could have given really great answers that still remain inside his conservative views but instead he fucked up.When asked about how to deal with religious minorities he could have simply said, "we will have a zero tolerance approach to bigotry." That would have done wonders to his base. It would have freshened the air a bit because the biased left wing radical media won't back down from ad hominem attacks -- "he's a Nazi! he's a bigot! he's a misogynoist!" etc bullshit.

Still, Trump remains the only anti-establishment candidate out there and the only one with the balls to do anything about it. So we might have no choice but to vote for him......

Trump, you better shape up.

PS. I'm pro-choice in some cases but the moral dilemma is of course that aborition cheapens life which in turn weakes the social structure of a nation which in turn helps push everything downward. Tough call. I say allow abortion but NEVER allow the tax payers to pay for it.